Barefoot a year in......

dianchi

dianchi

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 February 2007
Messages
6,125
Location
Herts
Visit site
I will try and get some sole/hoof shots this weekend when there is day light!
And I have the originals from last year to show off.

Hinds came off three years ago now and fronts last year.

However if not sure that i'm entirely happy with her at times and at a bit of loss where to go/try now.
I do need a new trimmer- my old one has moved away and stupidly I tried the farrier on the yard who took off all her frog and made her feet "pretty" about 8/9 weeks ago :( Lesson learnt (herts area please!)

She is on A&P Calm and Condition (Her weight doesn't work with anything else and she hates copra), ERS pellets, Linseed MSM and Pro Hoof

Soft ground, roads, school surfaces, jumping all fine.

But I wouldn't say that she is a stone cruncher and that sometimes she is a bit touchy over stoney areas- she keeps going but I can hear her go ouch.

I also did some videoing with physio and she is landing heel first in walk and trot on the concrete yard.

Her routine I think is where I might be letting her down, she walks from concrete yard out to fields and due to work I can only get up in the eves to work so she is then in the school. Weekends I might hack one day but most sundays are competing.

I will get pics so you can all critic those but any ideas on anything else?
 
I see no reason for testing for cushings (which appears to be the new ulcer answer), on what grounds do you think this?
 
I'm still very much a barefoot newbie but I think you answered your own question. If it's only the surfaces she covers the least then being a bit ouchy isn't that surprising surely? What surface riding do you find she feels her feet? Also have you ever used boots? I she can manage all other work barefoot fine I'd be tempted to boot her up but then I will stress again I'm a newbie and I'm sure there are more experienced people who will give better answers :)

Ps look forward to pics - be nice to see comparison.

Edit to add - is she as ouchy as when shoes first came off and are hinds better than fronts?
 
dianchi said:
I see no reason for testing for cushings (which appears to be the new ulcer answer), on what grounds do you think this?
Click to expand...

Testing is exposing a surprising number of relatively young horses with cushings whose only symptom is footiness, so I advise everyone with an inexplicably footie horse to test for it.

Just like ulcers, which are also extremely common, a diagnosis is often achieved by reaction to the medication.

False negatives are common in cushings tests partly because more than one hormone is involved, and I'm aware of horses which have tested negative but been given prascend as a test and responded to it very rapidly.
 
I don't think she is inexplicably footie, my question was is lack of concrete walking/Tarmac exercise unhelpful to the barefoot horse?

FYI my mare is 19 and I have no idea what young horse you are talking about.
 
dianchi said:
I don't think she is inexplicably footie, my question was is lack of concrete walking/Tarmac exercise unhelpful to the barefoot horse?

FYI my mare is 19 and I have no idea what young horse you are talking about.
Click to expand...


If your horse is nineteen then I double my recommendation that you test it for Cushings.

In my opinion ANY horse which has been barefoot a year and cannot walk across concrete is inexplicably footie.
 
I dont understand the scoffy remarks about testing for cushings at all...
Yes, there is alot of talk about it right now..probably because there has been free testing over the last two months and quite a few surprising results with younger than ever horses testing positive.
This a good thing surely and can help with alot of unexplained symptoms inluding footiness.
 
cptrayes said:
If your horse is nineteen then I double my recommendation that you test it for Cushings.

In my opinion ANY horse which has been barefoot a year and cannot walk across concrete is inexplicably footie.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have misread!

Concrete was not an issue, I clearly stated Stoney areas.

You have made it clear here and on PM how rude you are and that if people don't agree with your opinion that they are wrong.

As you have made no helpful suggestions to the question posed-regarding is lack of surfaces unhelpful to barefoot horses, I suggest you go away.

Whilst you may post under your own name (which if people don't is also wrong in your eyes) you are certainly very rude.
 
JFTD said:
What point is there in testing (the test is rubbish anyway) or treating without a positive test a condition which isn't causing any significant issue.


And dianchi, that's not news to some of us ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I don't see the point in testing (it's not free from my vets) and given the amount of false positives it gives Its not a route I would want to go.
Plus I have no desire to try and medicate her forever, feed is a struggle to get her to eat let alone daily drugs!
 
Uh, Im a bit confused but interested in this thread as having similar issue with my horse! 5 months bare still footy over small stones etc. Much better without a rider, but with me on board he feels the pesky little harp ones more than the big old stones sometimes! I have just given in and booted all round. Something I really didnt want to do. I guess I feel a bit defeated as my goal was to have a totally sound horse without anything to aid with this! Anyhow, I cant keep weeing him gimp when he hits something sharp so boots are on for now. Hes very happy on smooth tarmac or concrete but the roads are just too messy near me.

I am interested in the discussion about the cushings testing, although it seems to have become a little personal (??) steering away from that I am interested to know about the efficiency of the test. My boy has been tested twice, both negative. Last test was last friday. My vet siad lots of boarderline cases show up this time of year so we reran the test just to be sure. He never mentioned about false positives or negatives but then maybe this is why he wanted to repeat the test. He never mentioned that to me. So is the test unreliable?? By what sort of stats? Would it be worth trialling the prascend to see if the footiness reduces?? My horse is only 9 but I will be happy to try anything to get him rockcrunching in the longterm!
 
JFTD said:
What point is there in testing (the test is rubbish anyway) or treating without a positive test a condition which isn't causing any significant issue.


And dianchi, that's not news to some of us ;)
Click to expand...


My understanding is that false negatives are an issue but I was unaware of a problem with false positives. Can you point me to your references so that I can read up on it?
 
dianchi said:
Clearly you have misread!

Concrete was not an issue, I clearly stated Stoney areas.
Click to expand...

So you did. I apologise for that. She is ouchy on stony areas. How stony? Stones sitting on a road or firm path. Or stones in dirt?

I am sorry that you were upset about my reply to your second PM to me, the one which repeated more strongly your insistence that your mare did not need to be tested for Cushings, but having twice explained my reasoning I could not understand why you were PMing me again.
 
Last edited:
JFTD said:
Indeed. Knowing a bit of the bg (unlike cpt) I think that's very sensible.
Click to expand...

Well how can we help if we don't get told the background? And why is Dianchi posting on here and getting upset about reasonable suggestions when she has friends like you who do know the background to help her?
 
cptrayes said:
My understanding is that false negatives are an issue but I was unaware of a problem with false positives. Can you point me to your references so that I can read up on it?
Click to expand...

Where did I mention false positives? I think you need to learn to read posts more carefully.
 
JFTD said:
Where did I mention false positives? I think you need to learn to read posts more carefully.
Click to expand...

You didn't. But logically their can be no harm whatsoever in a test which gives false negatives but not false positives.

It means that some horses with the condition go untreated, which is precisely why I mentioned that some diagnoses are being made by seeing how the horse responds to medication.

But it does no harm and is therefore far from useless, which was your suggestion.

It is my view that at the age of nineteen it is more likely than not that Dianchi's horse is in the early stage of cushings where the only symptom is footiness on stones. It may not be, but it would lengthen the horse's life, in all probability, if it tests positive and is treated early before systemic damage occurs.
 
cptrayes said:
You didn't. But logically their can be no harm whatsoever in a test which gives false negatives but not false positives.

It means that some horses with the condition go untreated, which is precisely why I mentioned that some diagnoses are being made by seeing how the horse responds to medication.

But it does no harm and is therefore far from useless, which was your suggestion.
Click to expand...

I disagree, as a matter of fact. I think there is a lot wrong with treating a horse on the off chance. Few drugs come with a completely negligible toxicity profile, and unnecessary use is not something I would consider. That is doubly a concern when the horse is a poor doer who is fussy about food (as D has posted on here in the past) and the likelihood of medicating feed adversely affecting appetite is significant. Heck one of the recognised side effects of peroglide is anorexia anyway!

The test is fairly useless as it has such low sensitivity. You clearly disagree, but this is a matter of opinion, not fact, and as such I stand be my comments.

Btw, isn't it also a banned substance for affiliated competition?
 
JFTD said:
I disagree, as a matter of fact. I think there is a lot wrong with treating a horse on the off chance. Few drugs come with a completely negligible toxicity profile, and unnecessary use is not something I would consider. That is doubly a concern when the horse is a poor doer who is fussy about food (as D has posted on here in the past) and the likelihood of medicating feed adversely affecting appetite is significant. Heck one of the recognised side effects of peroglide is anorexia anyway!

The test is fairly useless as it has such low sensitivity. You clearly disagree, but this is a matter of opinion, not fact, and as such I stand be my comments.

Btw, isn't it also a banned substance for affiliated competition?
Click to expand...



I have no idea if pergolide is a banned substance for affiliated competition. I'm rather more interested in whether my horses are properly cared for than whether they are eligible for affiliated competition. Fussy eaters can always be given drugs by syringe if the won't eat them in food. Not wanting to eat a drug is no reason to allow a sick horse to go without medication, in my view. No-one is suggesting treating this horse, or any other 'on the off chance' far less 'unnecessarily'.

I do now understand, since affiliated competition is clearly at stake, why Dianchi's opposition to testing this horse for Cushings appeared to me to be extreme.

I stand by my recommendation to test this 19 year old footsore horse for Cushings.
 
Last edited:
JFTD said:
What point is there in testing (the test is rubbish anyway) or treating without a positive test a condition which isn't causing any significant issue.


And dianchi, that's not news to some of us ;)
Click to expand...

If the horse isn't comfortable on it's feet after that sort of period without shoes surely that is an issue?

and am confused re. the not free at my vets? as it is the lab charges which are waived?

Fwiw I did have Frank tested (same age) a few months in on the basis that he obviously started with compromised feet and if he did come up positive (and yes I know the test not great ;) ;) ) I would rather know about it and then decide whether or not I wanted to treat on the basis of that or just be a little more strict with any management ie he isn't particularly grass restricted etc atm.

and yes it is banned and for RC champs etc but I think for me that would be a combined decision with all of the information I had at the time if that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
I think there's a world of difference between "uncomfortable on its feet" and "just slightly unhappy on stony ground". I don't think that's an issue worth worrying about, personally.

Most people have horses to do a job and, where welfare isn't compromised (which in my opinion, in this situation it isn't), it is definitely a consideration whether there is any appropriate treatment which is competition legal.

However, you are entitled to your opinions, of course. Just as I am to mine.
 
JFTD said:
I think there's a world of difference between "uncomfortable on its feet" and "just slightly unhappy on stony ground". I don't think that's an issue worth worrying about, personally.

Most people have horses to do a job and, where welfare isn't compromised (which in my opinion, in this situation it isn't), it is definitely a consideration whether there is any appropriate treatment which is competition legal.

However, you are entitled to your opinions, of course. Just as I am to mine.
Click to expand...

I think once anyone has owned a series of rock crunchers there is an inclination to view any horse which is sore on stones without a known reason as having an undiagnosed problem.

Plus I am a strong barefoot advocate and I don't like seeing horses which have been barefoot a year wince on stones, because I know that it prejudices other people against going barefoot.

I am happy to differ in opinion as to whether we feel footiness needs investigation, but if I didn't want to investigate I wouldn't be posting on an open forum or PMing people to ask their advice and then PMing them again to tell them their advice is incorrect, personally.
 
Last edited:
I tried barefoot for 2 horses - they were managed appropriately (don't want to get into it but kept on yard at night free roaming and field, yard, arena in day - no sugar etc) and my trimmer and farrier both said had A1 feet BUT they were both footy on our stone tracks when ridden - fine on road, field, yard but didn't like stone tracks - the stones are huge - however pony I had walked in hand over the same track when we moved yards was 100% on it - what was the difference ?........ very basic - pony had very naturally upright feet having come off the welsh hills, my 2 have more draft like feet designed for softer ground - not as upright. If you read up on it horses feet have evolved to cope with the ground they live on - yes some will cope with whatever you throw at them but you cant essentially change the foot from one of a draft type to a upright pony foot. The upright one is designed with more concavity as the hard ground means the foot/frog takes more force to contact the ground.

In my experience had my horses not had to go on the stone tracks they would have managed barefoot but to put a rider on top of them and expect them to cope with the "ouchy" was unfair so I shod one - tried boots for a while but they were a pain in the butt..... one is retired and is barefoot and self trims - farrier checks feet when comes but only needs a trim once a year to tidy up.

This is what I understand and why I stand by the belief that not all horses can manage barefoot on all ground - yes they can manage on most ground but stony tracks seem a no go (stands in firing line waiting to be shot at !!_
 
cptrayes said:
I think once anyone has owned a series of rock crunchers there is an inclination to view any horse which is sore on stones without a known reason as having an undiagnosed problem.

as it happens I own 3, all of whom work on a stoney track daily and manage fine. I don't necessarily believe all other horses can, or will with reasonably normal management. I accept you may disagree on this point, but since neither of us can prove it...

I am happy to differ in opinion as to whether we feel footiness needs investigation, but if I didn't want to investigate I wouldn't be posting on an open forum or PMing people to ask their advice and then PMing them again to tell them their advice is incorrect, personally.
Click to expand...

Lots of people post for advice and choose to ignore bits which they think are irrelevant, daft or unhelpful. I think your taking offence at being told by the OP she doesn't agree with you is a bit precious. People post, people respond, not every piece of advice is taken - that's life!
 
Meesha the vast majority of my barefoot horses have been draft crosses and the one I currently hunt is a shire xID. with feet seven inches across. Whatever it was stopping your horses from being rock crunching, I really don't think it was having draft feet.

JFTD I did not take offence at the disagreement, I got justifiably irritated at the waste of my time replying to PMs that were repeating previous rejections of my advice. Disagreement is fine by me.
 
Ah well if it's just wasted time that's bothering you -'don't bother replying or even reading them if you don't think they say anything new. Otherwise you're just battling for the last word.
 
Going back to the OP.

Here on the New Forest the ponies avoid the stony tracks. Now they are all barefoot, their feet are probably about as tough as you are going to get in the UK because this is a relatively dry area. But still if you watch, they try and avoid the stones, hence every track has numerous paths along the side on the earth.
Roads no problem.

I think you have the answer, because of your lack of time, the horse probably isn't getting enough time on hard surfaces. I would think the first port of call would be to just try and increase the time on roads. And really check for thrush, keep on top of it. It's surprising how sore it can make them and I don't think that's realised enough because shoes tend to cover the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top